I was enjoying a rare day off when I flipped on the Hannity show and heard Ann Coulter talking about Sarah Palin’s resignation from the Alaska governor gig.
Her spokesman wouldn’t say why Palin decided to step down, but the announcement stirred speculation that she would focus on a bid for the 2012 Republican nomination for president.
Spokesman Dave Murrow says Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the governor’s picnic in Fairbanks at the end of the month.
Speculation is running amok, of course; some say she’s just taking political life and shoving it (but there are less auspicious weekends for that than the Fourth of July. Who could blame her?
Others, of course, say she’s clearing the decks for a run in 2012.
As for me? I don’t think that a run will hurt her one bit – but I’m going to cross my fingers and hope she runs for the Alaska Senate seat open next year. As we saw this past election, having two years in the Senate no longer disqualifies one for a Presidential run (even with someone with as mediocre a resume as Obama); two to six years learning the Washington ropes would be good additions to her political rap sheet.
Coulter brought up a great point – she noted that Margaret Thatcher grew up as the daughter of a grocer, and had the accent to show for it. She didn’t talk in the Eton/Harrow/Cambridge accents that the UK’s ruling class learned or affected. She had to learn to talk that way; it didn’t come naturally. Likewise, in America while we might be governed by someone with a Texas accent, or one of those Harvard/Boston brogues (described by PJ O’Rourke as sounding like the speaker put the PoliGrip on the wrong side of the dentures), it’s a stretch to see us governed by someone who sounds like Frances McDormand in Fargo.
Palin has a better resume than Obama had this time a year ago; a hitch in the Senate would make her darn near a fantastic candidate. She just needs to stop droppin’ her “G’s” and try to sound as white and middle-class as Obama does.
She needs to work on more than her accent to become a viable candidate for president, but you’re right that winning a Senate seat would help burnish her credentials.
Sarah Palin = abbrogate responsibility.
BTW, Mitch, being governor of the state with the largest welfare dole-out in the nation, paid for by taxes on corporate profits meaning you about never have a budget problem, does not make you qualified. It probably even means you lived in a fantasy land.
No Peev. She just got tired of assholes like you.
Peev = pathetic.
Hmmm, yes, Senate seat, QUITE SO. See you guys in 2028.
S. Palin is in charge of Alaska. Alaska’s unemployment rate is 8.1%. Obama is in charge of the United States. The U.S. unemployment rate is 9.1%. Using the logic displayed on these pages by peev, angry clown, RickDFL, etc, there is therefore no doubt that Palin is something over 12% a better chief executive than Obama is.
Can’t wait til 2012.
Have to correct you, Terry. The US unemployment rate is 9.5%.
Heckuva job, Barry!
Can’t wait til November 2010.
I don’t know. It sounded like she was reading from a teleprompter when she gave her speech. No good, right?
I heard the whole thing. I thought she sounded shaken, and almost a little out of control.
Face it, if the ‘pubs choose to go with her at some point, it will be a bad choice.
McCrazy had several female choices that would have made better VPs, and destroyed Joe Plugs in debate; KBH or KTW were just the two headliners.
I cannot believe that the ‘pubs would make the same mistake twice….
Now, would they?
This is the second state job she has quit, she is facing serious family problems (or so I’ve heard – I don’t pay attention to that kind of stuff its not worth it) and her speech was rambling and more than slightly bizarre. Whatever movement conservatives believe about her, if she’s the GOP candidate you’ve lost the swing independents and conservative democrats – the exact same ones that fled to Obama when McCain decided to stomp around Washington to get in on the financial crisis.
I imagine that swing independents and conservative democrats are very happy with the Obama choice right now.
Bill,
if she’s the GOP candidate you’ve lost the swing independents and conservative democrats
Er, why?
Look – Palin’s big problem was that she was paired with McCain, and since McCain had always let the Democrats control his message, they had excessive control over how McCain used hers as well.
The “swing independents” were motivated largely by the national desire to break from Bush, which meant the second coming of Reagan would have had a tough time. And there was nothing about the McCan message that was going to give “conservative democrats” any kind of choice.
The big lesson from Palin’s candidacy isn’t that “She was dumb” – that’s the label the Dems will put on every Republican, because it’s all they ever do. And it’s not that she’s “too conservative”, because they say that about every Republican who actually runs against them; they said it about Mac, whose voting record wasn’t that far to the right of Jim Ramstad. It can’t be “too inexperienced”, because she has more, better experience than the vacuous bobblehead we now have in the White House. No, the big lesson from the Palin candidacy is that conservatives need to do to the GOPs “moderates” what Reagan did to the media; ignore them and go around them tothe American people.
– the exact same ones that fled to Obama when McCain decided to stomp around Washington to get in on the financial crisis.
I utterly reject the notion that Mac going back to Washington lost him any significant votes. And the fact remains Palin was probably the only thing that kept Mac within 15 points this past election.
Stoo,
Every pol reads from a teleprompter. It’s just that Palin isn’t tied to it like Obama is to is. You’ve never heard Palin bobble her speech because the teleprompter was going the wrong speed.
Jack,
Whitman and Hutchinson are both even more “moderate” than Mac was. They excited the base, if anything, less than McCain did. After nearly a decade of hearing how Mac was the Republican that Democrats could vote for (including a couple of Dems who pop up in this forum!), I find it hard to believe that anyone who wasn’t convinced by Mac was going to be convinced by someone who was like Mac, but more mediocre.
Because make no mistake about it; “Moderate” Republicanism was the big loser in the last two elections. And since it stands to reason Dems want the GOP to keep nominating more moderate hamsters; given a choice between a tax and spend liberal and a tax and spend Republican, what’s the point of voting Republican? There is none – which is why the Dems love seeing Republicans talking about people like Whitman and Hutchinson (who, by the way, would be “too conservative” and “too dumb” the moment they got nominated anyway).
Look at Obama. He’s a disaster. He has an eighth grader’s sense of history with a five year’s old grasp on economics. To his credit he’s a fine reader. Oh, and he seems to be able to manipulate people.
I wonder how high unemployment will go?
She just needs to stop droppin’ her “G’s” and try to sound as white and middle-class as Obama does.
In other words, she needs to become someone she isn’t. I don’t know what that gains her, or us.
Ben pondered “I wonder how high unemployment will go? ”
With this admin I think 12% is very likely. Look for some kind of accounting trick to “adjust” the number down next year. Maybe sooner.
I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like hanging with my liberal buds 6 months into the GWB presidency. They were all convinced that he would go down to defeat in 2004, and every development over the next 3 years reinforced that conviction.
PH,
Very true, and something to watch out for.
However, it’s worth noting that under Bush the economy did (until 2008) undergo an epic boom.
D,
To an extent? Yes. If I’m interviewing for a job, I become someone I’m not; I dress up, I watch my language, I mind my diction during the interview; I give people fewer reasons not to hire me.
Which isn’t to say that I don’t bring what I have to the table; I just wrap that in a package that plays up my strengths and minimizes my weaknesses.
Being a small town working mother who built a political career that took her into contention for the most powerful office on earth by age 45? Strength. Dropping her Gs, and being a little weak on Washington stuff? Weakness. Ability to get some Big experience under her belt, ideally without losing her real strengths? Big opportunity.
Benjamin,
I don’t disagree, although he’s no dummy. He’s just very, very wrong. Beating him in 2012 is going to be tough. He needs to keep the wheels from coming off; the media will still be carrying water for him.
Peter, that is certainly a fair point. Critiques of the president should be substantive and I will admit that my comment was not. But adjusting it wouldn’t be hard. Focusing on the economics, Obama and his Congress are spending gobs more money than we have with the stated purpose of stimulating the economy (that’s one of the rationales at least.) Of course it doesn’t work that way. It’s just a foolish sleight of hand. Soon enough we’ll start hearing that a tax increase is necessary. We’ll be told that it is the responsible thing to do. It will be about the rich carrying their fair share. Profligate spending won’t be mentioned. All this time the economy will continue to suffer and we will have added a significant burden to our future attempts at prosperity. Clearly this is what debt is, right? A burden on the future?
It’s easy to slip into language that derides the president and this Congress as morons because their policies will not work (at least for their stated aims) and their rhetoric appeals to folks on the basis of falsehood (cap and trade is only about the environment in so far as it needs a selling point). Even so, your critique needs to be heard over and over to remind folks to critique policy, not people. Obama’s policies are a disaster and this will become increasingly clear. He could be a wonderful man with the best of intentions, but he would still need to go because his policies are hurting this country, both today and into the future.
Maligna malaised:
It probably even means you lived in a fantasy land.
anyone?
anyone?
OK. I’ll take it.
You should know.
Uncle Ben, my kids knew more about economics by age 5 than Obama does now. Take it back!
:^)
Only difference is, Maggie Thatcher had smartness (not to mention a pair of balls). Caribou Barbie has only hotness to recommend her. Now she’s a private citizen. For some reason, possible Republican presidential candidates seem to keep self-destructing. Next!
Of course she did. And you’ll say it not, that she’s no threat to the left. But in 1978, you’d have been there there calling her “dum”, too. Just like you said John McCain was the only good Republican, six or so years ago, and probably will again pretty quick here…
Sorry Mitch. Caribou Barbie is no Maggie Thatcher. And John McCain was your best shot in ’08. Thanks to George W. Bush (no Churchill, in case you were wondering), the Republicans had no shot in ’08.